Loebeck vs. Idaho State Board of Education,
96 Idaho 459, 530 P.2d 409; (1975)
Successfully reaffirmed district court decision that a nontenure professor had no property interest in continued employment.

Idaho State University vs. Mitchell,
97 Idaho 724, 552 P.2d 776; (1976)
Successfully litigated a general contractor's liability for damages occurring after the architect's issuance of a certificate of completion for the nation's first indoor collegiate football arena.

Garcia vs. Hanson, 101 Idaho 58, 608 P.2d 861; (1980)
Successfully litigated whether a punitive damage action survives the death of the victim.

Bank of Idaho vs. Colley and Christopherson,
103 Idaho 320, 647 P.2d 776; (1982)
Successfully determined Idaho law regarding the duties of the bank toward an unlimited guarantor and their mutual responsibilities for liquidation of other collateral.

Giacobbi Square vs. PEK Corporation,
105 Idaho 346, 670 P.2d 51; (1983)
Successfully determined a successor landlord's duty to honor a right of renewal to a major anchor tenant's shopping center lease.

Carter vs. Garrett Freight Lines and State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund,
105 Idaho 59, 665 P.2d 1069; (1983)
Successfully reaffirmed the standard of proof to which successful workman's compensation claims must be proven.

State of Idaho vs. Dave Bradley,
106 Idaho 358, 679 P.2d 635 (U.S. Supreme Court cert. denied); (1984)
Successfully determined that knowledge of an out-of-state felony arrest warrant is not sufficient basis to invade the sanctity of a home to make a felony arrest.

Nielson vs. State of Idaho, Industrial Special Indemnity Fund,
106 Idaho 878, 684 P.2d 280; (1984)
Successfully overturned an adverse Industrial Commission ruling. The case along with a companion then articulated a new rule of division of nonmedical factors between an employer and the second injury fund.

First Interstate Bank vs. Gill and Leslie,
108 Idaho 576, 701 P.2d 196; (1985)
Successfully determined Idaho law regarding the ability of a bank to pursue a deficiency judgment against a limited partner following nonjudicial foreclosure of a deed of trust.

Western Seeds vs. Bartu,
109 Idaho 70, 704 P.2d 274; (1985)
Successfully determined what facts an agent must make known as to both the existence of an agency relationship and the principal's identity to escape own personal liability. (Original district court decision reaffirmed on remand.)

Meyer vs. E.J. Bartells Company, Travelers Indemnity Co., and State of Idaho Industrial Special Indemnity Fund,
Supreme Court No. 17043 and 17044; (1987)
Matter settled during appeal of issues involving interrelationship of statute of limitations on low back injury and subsequent manifestation of asbestosis.

Cummings vs. Cummings,
115 Idaho 186, 765 P.2d 697; (1988)
Divorce matter; partially remanded for new Findings of Fact on status of property.

Don Fowler vs. City of Rexburg and Idaho State Insurance Fund,
116 Idaho 1, 773 P.2d 269; (1989)
Successfully defended claim based upon statute of limitations and determined when complaint must be filed in an ongoing worker's compensation claim.

Robertson vs. Magic Valley Regional Medical Center,
117 Idaho 979, 793 P.2d 211; (1990)
Personal injury claim; abolishes Open and Obvious Dangers Rules for slip and fall in parking lot - adopts comparative negligence for defendant.

Alumet and John Archer vs. Bear Lake Grazing Company,
112 Idaho 441, 732 P.2d 679; (App. 1987) (Alumet I)
Successfully determined under a phosphate ore lease that there existed an implied covenant to mine and then quantified that duty. Remand for trial on factual issues.

Alumet vs. Bear Lake Grazing Company,
119 Idaho 979, 812 P.2d 286; (App. 1989) (Alumet II)
Court of Appeals - Established a reasonable cure period and determined a reasonable mining level to be a reasonable miner's standard. Remand for trial on factual issues.

Alumet vs. Bear Lake Grazing Company,
119 Idaho 946, 812 P.2d 253; (1991) (Alumet III)
Remand for factual determination of reasonable mining level based upon industry expert's testimony and not subjective representations by mining company.

Amanda Dance vs. Bingham Memorial Hospital, Idaho State Insurance Fund and Industrial Special Indemnity Fund,
122 Idaho, 937, 842 P.2d 273 (1993)
Case appealed by Industrial Special Indemnity Fund as to apportionment of liability and benefits. Successfully upheld Industrial Commission decision.

Darlene Darner vs. Southeast Idaho In-Home Services and Industrial Special Indemnity Fund,
122 Idaho 897, 841 P.2d 427; (1992)
Successful defense of appeal by claimant on issue of whether there is substantial evidence to uphold Industrial Commission decision denying benefits.

Robert R. Tanner vs. Estate of Patricia Cobb,
101 Idaho 444, 614 P.2d 984; (1980)
Successfully obtained dismissal of appeal following successful trial on rejected creditor's claim.

Stephen B. Cameron vs. Minidoka County Highway District,
125 Idaho 801, 874 P.2d 1108; (1994)
Determined methodology for payment of attorney's fees upon future compensation saved by third party civil recovery.

Landvik vs. Herbert,
130 Idaho 54, 936 P.2d 697; (1997)
Determined that injured person must have actual reliance upon promotional advertising to hold retail store civilly responsible as a joint venturer in common area mall activity.

Lois A. Hughes vs. State of Idaho, Idaho Department of Law Enforcement,
129 Idaho, 558, 929 P.2d 120; (1996)
Upheld trial court's award of new trial based upon passion or prejudice for State of Idaho following overly successful jury verdict. Also determined that trial court should have included additional non-parties on special jury verdict for purposes of apportionment of comparative negligence.

Representative cases of Steven A. Thomsen, prior to entry into the law firm of McDevitt, Meyers & Thomsen:

Pugmire vs. Johnson,
102 Idaho 882, 643) P.2d 832; (1982)
Supreme Court held that a county's regular maintenance and extensive public use of roads in an unincorporated subdivision for longer than five years was sufficient to establish that those roads were part of the county road system, requiring the county to continue to maintain such roads.

McPherson vs. McPherson,
112 Idaho 402, 732 P.2d 371; (1987)
Supreme Court held that the witness can invoke fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer discovery only where he sketches a plausible scenario of how a potential response will provide direct or circumstantial evidence or clues leading to evidence of criminal conduct. A trial court has inherent authority to strike a party's pleadings or impose other sanctions where a party refuses to comply with a discovery request based upon an invalid assertion of privilege.

Representative cases of A. Bruce Larson prior to entry into the law firm of Meyers, Thomsen & Larson, PLLP:

Peterson vs. Franklin County,
130 Idaho 176, 938 P.2d 1214 (Idaho, May 30, 1997) (NO. 21943)
Obtained favorable decision in case involving procedural due process: county's decision to construct a landfill.

Kent vs. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Idaho,
127 Idaho 776, 906 P.2d 146 (Idaho App., Nov. 17, 1995) (NO. 21839)
Obtained favorable decision against insurance company based upon interpretation of policy language.

Fish Haven Resort, Inc. vs. Arnold,
121 Idaho 118, 822 P.2d 1015 (Idaho App., Dec. 23, 1991) (NO. 18703)
Obtained favorable decision overturning a dismissal based upon a former attorney's failure to respond to discovery.

City of Preston vs. Baxter,
120 Idaho 418, 816 p.2d 975 (Idaho, Jul. 08, 1991) (NO. 18987)
Landmark case interpreting the limits of "grandfather rights" under local zoning ordinances.

Lowry vs. Ireland Bank,
116 Idaho 708, 779 P.2d 22 (Idaho App., Sep. 01, 1989) (NO. 17624)
Determination of effect of Deed of Trust on community property interests.

Baxter vs. City of Preston,
115 Idaho 607, 768 P.2d 1340 (Idaho, Feb. 13, 1989) (NO. 17301)
Client awarded fees from City of Preston. Award upheld by Appellate Court.

Fisher vs. Crest Corporation,
112 Idaho 741, 735 P.2d 1052 (Idaho App., Mar. 13, 1987) (NO. 16003)
Successful defense of an appeal from the denial of a motion for relief from a default judgment.

Intermountain Health Care, Inc. vs. Board of County Commissioners of Caribou County,
108 Idaho 757, 702 P.2d 795 (Idaho, Jun. 17, 1985) (NO. 15416)
Case interpreting rights of hospital and indigent to payment by county for catastrophic health care costs.

Volker vs. State of Idaho,
107 Idaho 1059, 695 P.2d 809 (Idaho App., Jan. 30, 1985)
Case dealing with post-conviction relief, double jeopardy.

Argyle vs. Slemaker,
107 Idaho 668, 691 P.2d 1283 (Idaho App., Nov. 27, 1984) (NO. 14283)
Successful appeal of a motion for summary judgment involving the issue of witness credibility relating to mineral deed.

Lockhart Company vs. B.R.K., Ltd.,
107 Idaho 633, 691 P.2d 1248 (Idaho App., Nov. 19, 1984) (NO. 14148)
Successful defense of an appeal which set standard for constructive notice in case where an assignee of a Buyer's contractual interest sought to bind Seller with constructive nature. Buyer's interest in a land sale contract.

Newbold vs. Arvidson,
105 Idaho 663, 672 P.2d 231 (Idaho, Sep. 23, 1983) (NO. 14371)
Interpretation of procedures in setting aside a default judgment and a determination of what constitutes an "appearance" for the purpose of requiring notice per Rule 55 to appearing defendant.

Beker Industries Inc. vs. Georgetown Irrigation District,
101 Idaho 187, 610 P.2d 546 (Idaho, Apr. 18, 1980) (NO. 12938)
Determination of the extent of an irrigation system in a fully adjudicated creek.

The materials included in this World Wide Web site are furnished as general information only; they may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. These materials are not intended as a substitute for obtaining specific legal advice from qualified legal counsel. Your review or use of this information does not establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Meyers, Thomsen & Larson, PLLP, nor any of our individual attorneys. Hiring a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you written information about our qualifications and experience.

You are welcome to send us electronic mail. However, please be aware that, if you are not a client of our firm, your electronic mail will not be treated as privileged or confidential and may be disclosed to other individuals. Therefore, you should not send us confidential information until you have established an attorney-client relationship with us. Electronic mail on the Internet is not secure. Even if you are a client, you should avoid sending us sensitive, confidential information in unencrypted messages.

This web site is not intended to be advertising. Meyers, Thomsen & Larson, PLLP does not wish to represent any individual or entity desiring representation based upon the viewing of any information contained in this web site in any state in which this web site does not comply with all laws and ethics rules of that state.

Any other links or other web sites are provided as a convenience to users of this site and are not intended as referral to, or endorsement of, those sites. The links are maintained by their respective organizations, which are solely responsible for their content. For any additional information about our firm, please contact Steven A. Thomsen at (208) 233-4121.